hotline header

An e-newsletter delivering updates and analysis on current issues about Israel and the Middle East conflict

February 20, 2014

Scarlett Johansson's courage and clarity offer John Kerry and the Palestinian Authority a valuable lesson.

Dear Friend of FLAME:

Zionists the world over cheered Scarlett Johansson's rejection of charity Oxfam's demand that the actress dissociate from Israeli-owned SodaStream, whose main factory is in the West Bank, just east of Jerusalem.

Ms. Johansson did what Secretary of State John Kerry hasn't had the guts to do: In resigning from Oxfam, she forcefully rebuked the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.  Her commercial for SodaStream aired as planned during the Super Bowl.

Mr. Kerry, rather than condemning the BDS movement, has recently been using it as a club, predicting more boycott campaigns against Israel if the Jewish state doesn't knuckle under to U.S. demands.

Kerry in effect wants Israel to compromise her security in the interests of a peace deal with the Palestinian Authority, which would give the Secretary a feather in his cap (and perhaps a Nobel Peace Prize).

The only problem with Mr. Kerry's calculus is . . . the Palestinians. 

Rather than accept the reality of Israel---and the powerful potential of the Jewish state to help the Palestinian people thrive, as SodaStream does its hundreds of Palestinian employees---the Palestinian Authority continues to demand conditions for peace that would destroy Israel.

This illustrates the crux of Israel's problem in reaching a peace deal with the Palestinian Authority in general---the PA's steadfast refusal to accept the existence of the Jewish state.

Recent reports assert that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have reached preliminary understandings on dozens of conflict issues, but if the Palestinians are not willing once and finally to withdraw their claims to "all of Palestine, from the river to the sea," there's little point in continuing John Kerry's peace-talks charade.

That's the underlying point of this week's FLAME Hotline article, written by Commentary's Jonathan Tobin.  Tobin's analysis explains why it's so likely the Palestinians, realizing that a peace agreement will force them to accept the Jewish state, will choose once again to flinch and say, "No!"

Please review and pass this outspoken and informative article to your friends and colleagues. Help us inform U.S. citizens about the folly of Kerry's pressure campaign against Israel.

Thanks for your support of FLAME and of Israel!

Best regards,

Jim Sinkinson
Vice President, Facts and Logic About the Middle East (FLAME)


P.S. FLAME has been spreading the truth about the insidious BDS movement for several years.. To get the word out, we created and published a hasbarah (public relations) message---"The Truth about the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement: Does it stand for Middle East peace or does it seek Israel's destruction?"---in media reaching 10 million readers. This position paper has become even more relevant today, in the wake of Scarlett Johansson's courageous stand. I hope you'll review this powerful piece and pass it on to all your contacts who will benefit from its message. If you agree that FLAME's bold brand of public relations on Israel's behalf is critical, I urge you to support our publication of such outspoken messages. Please consider giving donation now, as you're able---with $500, $250, $100, or even $18. (Remember, your donation to FLAME is tax deductible.) To donate online, just go to Now more than ever we need your support to ensure that Israel gets the support it needs---from the U.S. Congress, from President Obama, and from the American people.

On the Eve of the Fourth Palestinian "No"
Jonathan S. Tobin, Commentary, February 6, 2014

Secretary of State John Kerry's efforts to orchestrate a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians has breathed new life into old arguments about West Bank settlements and the need for Israel to take risks for peace. Kerry's clear advice to the Israelis that they must give the Palestinians what they want or find themselves boycotted and isolated is widely accepted as conventional wisdom by the foreign-policy establishment. The movement to boycott, divest, and sanction (BDS) Israel assumes Israel's foes will ultimately win because in the absence of peace, frustration about failed negotiations will cause the Jewish state to be portrayed as the new South Africa, a crumbling nation that will be brought to its knees by economic warfare.

Israel's enemies have always underestimated its resiliency and this time is no exception. But the problem with many of the discussions about such boycotts is that they invariably ignore some basic facts about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. If, in fact, Israel is willing to give up almost all of the West Bank and allow the Palestinians their independence, that renders moot Kerry's condescending advice echoed by his supporters in the media. The majority of Israelis are rightly concerned about the consequences of a West Bank withdrawal and the very real possibility that the Hamas terror state in Gaza will be replicated in any other land that the Jewish state surrenders.

But the key question that those, like Kerry, who are urging the Netanyahu government to do just that is not about the merits of a pact that would make the Jewish state more vulnerable. Rather, it is about what Kerry and his minions will do after the Palestinians once again say, "no." After all, they've already done it three times. And, if news reports are correct, they may be on the verge of a fourth rejection of American-imposed terms in the wake of Israel putting an offer of 90 percent of the West Bank while being compensated for the remaining ten percent with land swaps inside Israel's pre-1967 borders, or other exchanges.

Though most in the news media treat this information as being only slightly more arcane than the details of the Peloponnesian Wars, the fact is, Israel has already offered the Palestinians an independent state in almost all of the West Bank, Gaza, and a share of Jerusalem three times. And three times they refused to say yes to Israel. The first two refusals were straightforward "no's" from Yasir Arafat in 2000 and 2001, who answered Ehud Barak's peace offers with a terrorist war of attrition called the second intifada. The third time, Arafat's successor Mahmoud Abbas was so worried about being forced to say no again that he fled the U.S.-sponsored negotiations with Israel in 2008 as soon as the Israelis made their offer in order to avoid giving an answer at all.

If Abbas finds another reason to avoid accepting a generous deal that would give the Palestinians the independence they claim is their goal, it raises the question of how Israel's critics will justify the BDS campaign that Kerry threatened the Jewish state's punishment if an agreement is not reached. Will they dismiss Israel's offers as insignificant or not worthy of an answer? Or will they claim the difference between 90 percent of the West Bank plus swaps and every inch of the territories that Israel won in a defensive war in 1967 is so significant that it justifies an economic war on the Jewish state, terrorism, or both?

The answer to those questions is yes to all. As was the case after 2000 and each time since then, apologists for the Palestinians will find a way to justify the indefensible and to rationalize the Palestinians' inevitable resort to violence, in addition to international campaign bent on Israel's delegitimization. But for the most part they will do what they have done since 2000 and merely ignore Israel's offers of peace and consider the absence of an agreement as proof of the Jewish state's sole responsibility for the continuation of the conflict.

The first time Israel sought to give the Palestinians the West Bank, Arafat's answer confused the Israeli left-wing that staked its political life on the transaction. The government of Ehud Barak went to Camp David in the summer of 2000 determined to give the Palestinians an offer they couldn't refuse. But when Arafat did refuse it, they hardly knew what to think. At a press event I covered in the fall of 2000, Shlomo Ben Ami, Israel's foreign minister conveyed his shock at the way his effort to satisfy the Palestinian desire for independence had somehow led to yet another bloody conflict. Yet he said there was a silver lining to these tragic events since at least the world would now know which side wanted peace and which had chosen war. More than 13 years later, I still don't know whether to laugh or to cry at his naive faith in international public opinion.

As we now know, rather than undermine the Palestinian narrative of victimization those events only increased international support for their position and criticism of Israel. That was repeated after Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 when, again, an Israeli effort to make peace was repaid in blood as the evacuated territory was transformed into a launching pad for Hamas rockets aimed at Israeli civilians.

The prime obstacle to peace remains the Palestinian political culture that continues to view Israel's existence as a crime and considers Tel Aviv, let alone the blocs of communities along the old border or in Jerusalem's suburbs, to be as much of an "illegal settlement" as the most remote hilltop holdout of Jewish extremists in the West Bank. In the absence of a change in that culture that will allow Abbas to sign a peace treaty without a "right of return" for the descendants of the 1948 refugees and recognition of the legitimacy of a Jewish state, there is little chance that the Netanyahu government's offer of 90 percent of the West Bank will be accepted. Nor is a slightly more generous formula likely to do the trick. As they did in 2000, 2001, and 2008, the Palestinian leadership seems to be preparing their public for continued conflict rather than for an acceptance of an accord that would force them to give up their dream of Israel's complete annihilation.

Rather than twisting Netanyahu's arm to do what it his country has already tried to accomplish in the past—trade land for the non-credible promise of peace—Israel's critics should be thinking about how they will react to the fourth Palestinian "no." Unfortunately, the odds are that most will barely notice it when it  happens and will simply continue blaming Israel. Indeed, that's exactly what the Palestinians—who know that's what happened the first three times they rejected Israeli offers of peace—are counting on.


How many times have you heard someone lament that Israel doesn’t have good public relations? By supporting FLAME, you help one of the world’s most powerful information efforts to spread the truth about Israel and the Middle East conflict. Please note that because FLAME is a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation, your donation is tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation.


If you have received this issue of the FLAME HOTLINE from a friend or colleague and you'd like to subscribe, please click here.

Our Ads and Positions | Donate | Our Letters to Editors | Our Acquisition Letters | FLAME’s Purpose | Subscribe to Hotline Alerts | Home

©2014 FLAME. All rights reserved. | Site Credits | Contact Us